People may say a lot about how chao kuan this country is.  While we can all differ about the veracity of that statement, one thing to me is so chao kuan that I can never possibly agree with it.

Amnesty International frequently issues urgent action appeals for condemned prisoners at imminent risk of execution.  While these mostly refer to prisoners in countries like the US, China, Japan, or Iran, this time I saw that the country in question was Singapore.

Yong Vui Kong was arrested in June 2007, when he was 19, by officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau.  He was charged with trafficking 42.27 grams of heroin, and then sentenced to death in January 2009.

He had been working as a messenger for a man in Malaysia who often asked him to collect money from debtors or deliver packages as "gifts" to people in Singapore and Malaysia.  At his trial, Yong Vui Kong said he had not known what was in the packages, and when he asked, he had simply been told not to open them.  The judge, however, ruled that Yong must have been aware of their contents, saying in his written summation, "I found that the accused had failed to rebut the presumption against him.  I am of the view that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and I therefore found the accused guilty as charged and sentenced him to suffer death."

Did you notice the use of the term 'presumption'?  That is because Singapore law states that when it comes to drugs, you are guilty until proven innocent.  The burden is on you to prove that you did not know that there were drugs in the package you were carrying or in the vehicle you were driving.  All the prosecution needs to do (if anything at all) is to show that you should have known that there were drugs in the sealed package or hidden under your car.

Regardless of whether Yong was indeed trying to traffick drugs or not, even if he really was guilty, what is more serious than the death penalty itself is this presumption.  If you remember a couple of years ago, there was a young Nigerian named Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi, who was also hanged because he "should have known"—even though the judge noted that there was no direct evidence that he did know or that he had found out on his own.  Indeed, his actions were consistent with someone who didn't know what he was carrying.  I have no idea whether anyone at all has ever managed to prove that he did not know and should not have known that there were drugs on him or in his vehicle, but certainly I have never heard of any case where the accused succeeded.  Furthermore, there is also another presumption which states that unless you prove otherwise, they can presume that you are carrying it for trafficking, not consumption, which can lead to a mandatory death sentence with no alternative and is almost an absolute certainty.¹

Those are two pretty amoral presumptions to make, aren't they?

---

¹ After the single appeal is rejected, the final recourse is to appeal to the President for clemency based on the mitigating circumstances of the case.  Since 1965, the President has granted clemency only six times; the last clemency was in May 1998 from President Ong Teng Cheong for an 18-year-old convicted of murder, with the sentence commuted to life imprisonment.  Between 1994–1999, Singapore had the highest per-capita execution rate in the world, estimated to be 13.57 executions per one million population.

[ X-posted to sg_ljers ]

§ Technorati tags: issues; social commentary

angeliatay posted this brainteaser of a question she encountered among her Pri. 1 son's Maths problems; let's see if you can solve it:

84, 64, A, 46, 24.
What is A?

Give up?  Heh, after trying very hard to determine the pattern between 84 and 64, and 46 and 24, I gave up—until she revealed that it was actually an MCQ question, and the options were:

a.2 b.74 c.36 d.51 e.34

Still baffled?  Well, I took one look and I immediately declared the answer to be D.  The reasoning was simple: it was quite apparent to me that 51 was the only number between 64 and 46!

And after I realised what it was trying to do, I steadfastly approve of this question.  It may be a Maths problem, but it really is a common sense answer.  Lots of kids grilled by the system in deconstructing questions into logical patterns with mathematical certainty will be probably baffled by this question.  At best, they will spend a lot of time trying to work out the logical pattern and then either give up and tikam, or realise the logic behind the flow belatedly, yet will still be too afraid to pick that answer with certainty; at worst, the kids will cry because the paper is so hard that they cannot understand that one question, then the kid's spirit will be broken.

However, even as we search for patterns and flows and logical progressions, we must never lose track or forget about the uncommon 'common sense'.  Far too often we see these brilliant government scholars churn out idea after idea, policy after policy, that promises to be ground-breaking, revolutionary, and a watershed—but when the people on the ground see this policy, the first thing we think of is: it simply lacks common sense.  I think it is important that from a young age, we allow our kids to realise that above all, whatever you do must first and foremost make sense.

Pri. 1 kids may be too young indeed to be taught the concept of Occam's Razor, but you are never too young to apply it.

§ Technorati tags: social commentary

Over the weekend I was at Vivocity before heading to a lunch party at the silly girl's place.  As I was walking through the sprawling complex, I saw this teenage couple walking in the opposite direction.  They were both dressed in a singlet, bermudas and track shoes, with the guy carrying a haversack.  The funny thing was: the guy was also carrying what appeared to be a dragon boat paddle, and brandishing it as he walked.  OK maybe not brandishing it, but he was certainly carrying it as though he was auditioning for Storm Riders II; you know, like

...except that instead of a sword, it was a paddle.

Over the past few months, I have been noticing all these guys carrying dragon boat paddles in the weirdest of places: in Takashimaya, in Raffles City, even in the Airport.  I saw this whole group of guys come into the BK at the basement in Suntec City—each carrying a paddle and plonking it against their seats as they went to order (what, were they trying to paddle in the fountain?)

What I wonder is: since when has a dragon boat paddle become a fashion accessory?  The paddle on its own is useless without the dragon boat itself, and you certainly can't carry the dragon boat home, so what use is it carrying the paddle around with you?  It's not even like a billiards cue which is also useless at home, but which you can bring to different billiards centres.

TRIVIA: Some people know that there is actually a special term referring to the fear of the number 13: triskaidekaphobia.  But did you know that there's also this term 'hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia'?  It refers to the fear of the number 666.

I asked a friend about this and he quipped that it has been something he has noticed it as well; he mused that what the guys are trying to portray is the image associated with dragon boaters.  Apparently it is not enough to appear tanned, toned, and have big biceps.  You need to carry something, a weapon of war, to indicate your status as a dragon boater.  After all water polo players can carry their water polo balls, and ruggers their rugby balls, so the dragon boaters need to carry something too.

Is this why paddles have become a fashion statement?  Simply because dragon boaters want to have something to wayang along with the other 'elite sports', and now it's cool to be seen carrying a dragon boat paddle in the middle of town far from the nearest water body?  What next?  Maybe I should sling a bundle of climbing ropes over my shoulder or carry an ice-axe the next time I walk down Orchard Road.  I think I'm going to give Khoo Swee Chiow a call to see if he's going to dispose of any of his old axes any time soon....

§ Technorati tags: observations; social commentary; trivia

Actually I don't think so lah, but it's quite uncanny how he addressed a topic I brought up recently during his NDR:

Religious activities not a must in mission schools

PRAYER, Bible classes or other religious activities must not be compulsory activities in mission schools, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said in his National Day Rally speech.

These schools, run by religious groups, are popular with families of all faiths for the quality of their education.

Schools must remain a common space for students of all religions, he emphasised.

If mission schools were allowed to make prayer and Bible classes compulsory, 'then we would have Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, etc all attending different schools, and our common space will shrink,' he said.

He held up St Joseph's Institution (SJI), run by the De La Salle Brothers, as an example of a mission school which has accepted students of all religions.

SJI principal Koh Thiam Seng told The Straits Times yesterday: 'Our hallmark is that we're always respectful of people's faiths and never impose religion on anyone.'

Dr Koh noted that SJI's religious and moral education programme has options for Catholic and non-Catholic students.

The Ministry of Education has stringent guidelines for mission schools: Prayers, religious classes and services must be optional, and admission to the school cannot be contingent on taking part in such activities.

In 2005, after public complaints about proselytising in schools, it ordered teachers not to engage in such acts.
[Redacted and emphasis mine]

Yay, SJI FTW! :)

OK but on a more serious note, I am very glad to see PM come out and reiterate in no uncertain terms that such practices are disallowed and must be stopped.  Perhaps the situation is really better now because most of the examples I have heard of (and I'm sure those of the friends who left comments as well) occurred ante-2005.  In any case, I am very pleased to see the Government state clearly its position on this issue, because this is something I believe in very strongly.

I will certainly be keeping a close eye on how the Government manages the 3 risks that PM highlighted: aggressive proselytisation, not respecting the beliefs of others, and segregation of separate exclusive circles.

A lot of this, I believe, falls on the respective leaders of the various religious groups.  The Government on their own cannot do anything without people like the Mufti, the archbishops, and leaders of the mega-churches like Derek Hong, Joseph Prince, and Kong Hee.  After all, we all know that the people who matter are merely flock who will only listen to what their shepherds tell them, not what LHL says.

§ Technorati tags: religion; social commentary

I found it interesting that in yesterday's news, SM Goh made a speech where he urged Singaporeans to avoid mixing only in enclaves of people with the same religion.  He insightfully pointed out that Singaporeans becoming more religious could lead to people of the same faith mixing only with each other, which over time could result in "compartmentalisation of our society by religion".

More importantly, he reaffirmed the Government's commitment to a secular government which represents Singaporeans of "all beliefs, including those without a religion".  As such, "public institutions or private organisations which receive public funding are not permitted to impose or advocate any religious belief or practice", and there are policies ensuring public housing estates and schools remain common secular spaces, "where nobody is made to feel uncomfortable whatever his colour or beliefs". [Emphasis mine]

---

Through a fortunate stroke of serendipity, I also came across this interesting nugget while looking for something else.

The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore states under Part IV [Fundamental Liberties] Section 16(3):

No person shall be required to receive instruction in
or to take part in any ceremony or act of worship
of a religion other than his own.
Don't ask me why I was poking around in our Constitution, but it is the supreme law of the land, and any law or any form of regulation that runs contrary to the Constitution shall automatically be void where the inconsistency is observed.

---

Over the years, I have had many friends from mission schools (I myself came from one).  And while the vast majority of these friends were Christians themselves, I do have the occasional friend who hailed from a mission school... but was not a Christian, being a Buddhist or an atheist instead.  Now it is no secret that in some mission schools, there are worship practices or religious instruction classes which are compulsory and part of the school curriculum.  I once asked one of these friends what happened in her school when such services were conducted, and apparently, the school practice was that only Muslim students would be excluded from religious instruction classes or services, but otherwise, all other students—regardless of race, language or religion—were compelled to attend.  In her school, they had a class called Chapel every Wednesday, where the school would gather for a religious service, and likewise, the only students who were allowed not to attend were Muslim students.  I asked her why the disparity, and why were Buddhist or atheist students not allowed to excuse themselves, and she said they didn't ask why—that was just the rule.

I'm no constitutional lawyer, but to me, that practice seems to be in direct violation of Part IV Section 16(3).

From my own experience, in my school, what we had were 2 separate classes: RME (Religious & Moral Education), which was Catholic-based instruction on the teachings of the Catholic Church, and CME (Civic & Moral Education), which was not faith-based and specifically taught by non-Catholic teachers, who could be Muslim, Buddhist, or atheist.  The important point to note was that the choice of which class to attend for the lesson was entirely up to the student.  By default, of course, all Catholic students were expected to attend RME classes, but should a Catholic student choose to attend CME classes instead, that was his choice, and on no account were non-Catholic students compelled or pressured into choosing RME instead of CME.

Even in school services, like on Founder's Day, while it was a predominantly Catholic-based service, a key component of the session was a period of multi-religious prayer, where Protestant, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, and Taoist students would lead a prayer in their own religion.  And even though we had daily chapel masses, on no occasion was any student compelled into attending.


I think that SM Goh has already stated the Government's position—that those who have no religion shall be treated in the same way as though they had one, which means that for all practical purposes, atheism and agnosticism would be considered as 'religions'—and it is consistent with the position taken in the Constitution.  If that is the case, would schools not have any authority upon which to make it mandatory for their students to attend any religious services which are not consistent with the student's own religion?

If anyone comes from a mission school, any input on your own experiences (or those of your schoolmates) would be helpful.

§ Technorati tags: religion; social commentary

"You know one thing about Singaporeans?  This complain, that complain, everything also complain.  This also cannot, that also cannot.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.  So like that how?  He say 'go', I say 'go', then just go lah!"

No wonder even an MP says we're being too mollycoddled.  Here's one example:

http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_381011.html

May 24, 2009
10-year series back
Copyright issue involving reprints of past Cambridge exams has been resolved
By Estelle Low and Kimberley Lim

Maths and science are bestsellers while others like principles of accounts and food and nutrition are less popular due to a smaller pool of exam candidates.

After almost six months, publisher Michelle Yoo might finally stop receiving frantic phone calls.

Her firm, Singapore Asian Publications, has received more than 50 calls daily from parents, teachers and students since the start of the year.

They wanted to know why they could not buy copies of the sought-after 10-year series, which compiles questions from past O- and A-level exams into books by subject.

The series was pulled because of a copyright issue.

For more than 40 years, the series, affectionately called TYS, has been relied upon by many students to beef up their confidence and exam smarts.

Dunman High student Lee Kang Lin, 18, said: 'The TYS gives us a very good gauge of what we will eventually face in the Cambridge exam. Whenever we approach our seniors for help, they always refer us to the TYS.'

There is good news now. The Ministry of Education (MOE) told The Sunday Times in an e-mail on Friday that the copyright issue had been resolved, and that the series will be back in July.

The Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB) and the copyright holder, the University of Cambridge International Examinations (CIE), reached an agreement on Friday.

For the past few months, students have been making do with preliminary exam papers from various schools, or scrambling to get copies of the TYS bought previously by others.

When told the good news, Kang Lin, however, said the release of the TYS in July may be 'too late'.

What Kang Lin doesn't seem to appreciate is that if the TYS is only released in July, it is released in July for everyone, not just for his school.  That doesn't put him at a disadvantage at all, so why would it be 'too late'?  Or is it that without the TYS, you're screwed and can't study?  Without the TYS, your brain turns to mush because there's nothing to memorise?  Without the TYS, you're dead?

We should demystify this TYS from being some sort of heaven-sent manna.

The crux of the article is something that I have been thinking of for some time: that this over-reliance on the TYS ultimately provides an inaccurate representation of education, for the national obsession with results and rankings drives our students to believe that the be all and end all is simply how many As or points you have on that results chit.

I wrote a long time ago about the arbitrariness of the system: how your performance in any exam could very well be arbitrary, a fluke, instead of an accurate gauge of what you have learnt, and more importantly, how you can apply this 'knowledge'.  The TYS, in my opinion, is really the epitome of rote learning.  Just keep doing the TYS, answer as many questions as you can and see how they are answered.  If you do enough of them, surely some questions that come up in your real exam, you would have seen before.

I say that if we truly want to foster creative thinking along with true understanding and application in our education system instead of being the robot factory we have erstwhile been described, then get rid of the TYS once and for all.

I'm not saying that the TYS is altogether useless—it does have its merits.  But when people start to regard it not as an aid but a need, the emphasis has gone wrong somewhere.  While I must admit that in my day, I did use the TYS as well to some extent, the problem with the TYS is that it becomes a disadvantage if everyone uses it and you don't, so if we want to purge the problem of this over-reliance on the TYS, the only way is to stop everyone from using it at all.  That's why this copyright issue could actually have been a good thing for the Singaporean education system.

But it seems that it is not to be: the TYS will reappear this year—it has only been delayed—and schools nation-wide will continue to trumpet this bastion of rote-learning, gearing students towards rigorous and repetitive regurgitation, rather than real, practical application.  After all, in a larger sense, this overemphasis on the result-oriented and not system-oriented TYS is perhaps symptomatic of the national philosophy of our Machiavellian society: where the ends justify the means.

Small wonder that even today, whenever anyone has any form of unbridled passion in anything that is not Maths, Science, or economically productive, they invariably get shot down.


Any teachers out there, it would be interesting to know what your personal opinion on the TYS is.

§ Technorati tags: news bites; social commentary

You know, it just occurred to me that perhaps one of the (many) reasons why more and more men are putting off getting married or evading it altogether is due to the gender inequality known as 'alimony'.  It is a fact enshrined in the Women's Charter that regardless of how much a woman earns, it is still her husband's duty to maintain her—even after a divorce.  This is flawed on 2 levels: 1) it presupposes that women are inferior to men and require men to maintain them, and 2) a man has to pay alimony to maintain his ex-wife should he earn more than her but it does not apply vice versa (I'm under the impression that the court may even order him to pay alimony to his higher-income ex-wife, but I'm not sure).

Given this glaring piece of discrimination, it's hardly surprising that many men feel that marriage is a raw deal.  What I am surprised at (and deeply admire) is that in 1996, NMP and former AWARE President (Old Guard) Dr Kanwaljit Soin spoke up in Parliament to amend this inequality but was overruled by Abdullah Tarmugi, because his "upbringing and background [tells him] that it is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife".  So wives can sue their husbands for maintenance if they are financially neglected and in need, both while the marriage legally subsists and after divorce.  Men cannot do the same even if they are ill or destitute and their wives or ex-wives are more than able to support them.  And the Government wonders why they need to pour so many resources into persuading people to get married, even if they are beautifully imperfect.  Actually it would help if they didn't shoot themselves in the foot.

---

Speaking of the Government shooting itself in the foot, when WKS made that comment that the media coverage on the AWARE fiasco was not "sufficiently balanced", did he just shoot himself in the foot?  Now more people will go to 'new media' like blogs for their credible coverage lor. -_-

---

And speaking of pride and the need to save face:

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/429702/1/.html

Casino mulls alternatives to whale shark exhibit
Posted: 16 May 2009 1809 hrs

SINGAPORE : A Singapore casino developer said Saturday it was considering alternatives to its plan to exhibit whale sharks, the world's largest fish, which had run into strong opposition from animal welfare groups.

"We have started to explore plans for an alternative to a whale shark exhibit," Krist Boo, the spokeswoman for Resorts World at Sentosa, told AFP.

Resorts World at Sentosa, one of two casino resorts being built in Singapore, had planned to import the whale sharks for its Marine Life Park (MLP) which is set to become the world's biggest oceanarium upon completion.

The park however said its move was not due to pressure by the seven animal welfare groups which have launched an online petition that has gathered more than 9,000 signatures.

"The MLP team does not take its responsibilities to both conservation and Singapore lightly and as such, we spent the past two years doing much groundwork," it said in a statement to AFP.

"We strongly believe that our action must be governed by the conservation of this species rather than what is dictated by fleeting public opinion."

Alternative options to the whale shark exhibit being considered by the MLP were shown to the various animal welfare groups last month, it said.

( Read more... )

Eh, if you realise you're wrong just admit you're wrong lah.  First you plan to house the big sharks, then when people make noise you U-turn, but then you say that you U-turn not because people make noise but because you take your "responsibilities to both conservation and Singapore" seriously.

If you did in the first place, then you would be exploring the feasibility of putting whale sharks in your exhibit instead of already planning to do so right?

Then they try to save face already not enough, must still go and slam the animal welfare groups by calling them "fleeting public opinion".  Hello, the public opinion is telling you that conservation of the sharks are more important than your exhibit lah!  If you really think they are irrelevant/insignificant, then why are you showing your alternative options under consideration to them for?

Some people really packaging fail lor.

§ Technorati tags: observations; social commentary

You know the recent U-turn MOE did over the AWARE CSE?  Apparently it was to do with 'suggested responses' which were supposedly "too explicit and inappropriate" which were found in a trainers' manual.  One of the statements was 'Anal sex can be healthy if done with consent and with condoms to protect from STDs'.  And the other was 'Homosexuality is perfectly normal.  Just like heterosexuality, it is simply the way you are'.

Naturally this provoked an outcry—an outcry which the fundies are blowing completely out of proportion (as usual).  Ovidia Yu places these statements in context in her excellent blog entry: Why Tell Teens Homosexuality Is Neutral.

I didn't know that the suggested answers were 'emergency responses' but I guessed as much when I heard that the 'suggested responses' were from a confidential trainers' guide that was leaked to the press.

I'm sure even in MOE there are lots of confidential guides restricted to teachers only and which students are not allowed access to.

Now that it's confirmed they are emergency responses, it all makes sense.  They were not meant to be used ordinarily, but to move the discussion back to the subject matter quickly if smart alec students try to put the trainer in a spot or attempt to pick on their classmates, and without doing more damage to any children who might already be struggling with their sexuality or being bullied by schoolmates.  But if students don’t ask such questions, then the 'suggested responses' are not needed.

If I liken it to our QRH (Quick Reference Handbook), the QRH is the handbook which is kept in the cockpit within easy reach and which we take out in emergency and abnormal situations to diagnose what's wrong and what corrective actions need to be taken.  The QRH is divided into 3 sections: red pages are emergencies, yellow pages are abnormal indications, and white pages are advisories.  Now, on most flights, the you don't have to even touch the QRH because everything goes smoothly.  However, should some abnormal indication appear, we would quickly take out the QRH to diagnose and resolve it such that nobody behind even realises something was amiss.  Needless to say, the red portion is very, very important when required, but such dire and critical situations are quite a rarity.

Similarly, these suggestive statements are emergency responses meant to be used only in the most dire and critical of situations, not freely explained to the students undergoing the programme.  I mean, there is a reason why the trainers' guide was supposed to be confidential, right?

---

§ Quod vide:

Ovidia: Already plotting next move

YB: Education ministry suspends AWARE's sexuality education programme

§ Technorati tags: social commentary

I think just about the one singular thing I will miss most about Singapore when I'm here is the fact that this afternoon didn't find me at the Suntec Convention Centre attending the AWARE EOGM.  If I were in Singapore, you could bet your last dollar I wouldn't miss it for the world.

Even from the live action updates via Twitter (kudos to msbrightside) it already sounded interesting and exciting enough.  In fact, it's even more exciting than a Singapore General Election!  Now who was saying this year maybe got GE?  Hehehehe....

I bet people won't be forgetting "Shut up and sit down!" for some time.

The Old Guard are really my heroes: dignified without resorting to emotional outbursts or cheap shots, pushing their points across succinctly and with logic without imposing their views on anyone else or resorting to cheap tricks, letting the weight of their points speak for themselves.  I'm so glad that they prevailed in the end and that the 'busloads' of fundie pawns didn't materialise.  More importantly, I'm glad that the fundies didn't get to take over an important secular organisation to push their grand agenda of imposing their ultra-conservative Christian world view on others when there are more pressing problems and women out there in need of real help.  As Denvy said, this is one of those moments where I feel proud to be a Singaporean and proud of Singapore.  This vindicative victory makes me feel even more about volunteering with AWARE when I come back.

The fundie ex-co may be clowns and Josie may be the chief clown, but I tell you, the most close-minded, bigoted, deluded, and insensitive one of all is that Grand Demented Feminist Dementor.  As someone commented, she's like the ideological mastermind, sending out her pawns to do her bidding while hiding cowardly behind a smokescreen until the situation forced her to reveal herself—just like a certain other religious ideological leader holed up in the mountains of Afghanistan.  And when she did reveal herself, unlike Josie who proved to be nothing more than a big waffler, TSM proved to be snide, haughty, condescending, self-righteous, holier-than-thou, and (there's no better phrase to use) haolian.  WTF is with the book-waving and Cartman-esque "Respect mah authorit-teh!!"  Amongst all the fundies involved in this debacle, she's the one I most feel like slapping [not that I'd actually do it, so please don't go running to the police claiming you got death threats].

Still, that brief takeover has done its share of damage.  AWARE has to rebuild its credibility quickly and guard against another fundie assault; I don't think this will be the last we'll see of them.  Then they have to undo all those electronic locks and CCTVs Josie installed at the AWARE centre.  Maybe that's how Josie & Clowns spent a whopping $90k in one month—that's like 450% of the constitutionally limited monthly expenditure!!

§ Technorati tags: social commentary

Govt won't interfere in AWARE saga
By S Ramesh/Cheryl Lim, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 26 April 2009 1900 hrs

SINGAPORE: The government has no intention of intervening in the saga involving AWARE (Association of Women for Action and Research).

Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, Vivian Balakrishnan, said this on the sidelines of his visit to Nee Soon South on Sunday.

The problems facing AWARE are not a national one, so it is best for the organisation to settle them democratically and according to its constitution. [...]

Not a national one?  On the contrary, I believe that the Singapore Government is closely watching how the events in AWARE pan out—and they should be.

Because the biggest threat to a PAP government is the Religious Rightwing.

Imagine: all it takes is for a few of these mega-churches to band together and exhort their flock in God's name to support a certain party or certain candidate, to "save Singapore" and to arrest the slide away from traditional, conservative, Christian values.  What do you think is going to happen?

So yes, as Vivian says, "it is important for organisations to keep religion above the fray of petty politics".  Let's hope earnestly for your sake and mine, they keep religion above the fray of national politics as well.

---

§ Quod vide:
XenoboySG: A Peculiar Irony

It is a peculiar irony that perhaps the Singapore Government's greatest enemy is not the opposition parties, not our weekend activists, not even our vaunted new media but an age-old ideology birthed when a man split the seas into two and another man got crucified on a cross.

It is Singapore's peculiar irony that we have in potentiality a movement that can topple the Government with one Word as they toppled AWARE with one Word.

§ Technorati tags: news bites; religion; social commentary

It's not surprising in the least but still I'm disgusted that the takeover of AWARE was planned like a terrorist attack months ago by a fundie Christian church, and like all terrorist organisations, there will inevitably be clues that point back to it.

Leaked emails from COOS members showed that AWARE take-over was pre-planned in advance

Dr Thio upset over sexuality programme

I find it ridiculous that Thio thinks that homosexuality is a man's issue when I happen to know a lot more lesbians than I do gays—unless of course she is myopic enough to be defining homosexuality as s377A defines it, in which case it is impossible to apply to women.

An Ethicist Speaks out on AWARE

I would sign up and vote at the EOGM if only I could.  All the women who can vote, I would encourage you to sign up for the EOGM and help reverse the creeping spectre of Christian fundamentalism.


However, I must admit that after reading the newspaper reports flying back and forth, I have had some nagging thoughts at the back of my mind.  The new ex-co claim that they decided to act because they felt that AWARE had lost its focus—which was to work to give disadvantaged women a voice, to ensure that women were treated fairly and to ensure that women had a choice, a say in deciding how their lives were run.  They were a group that focused on research on women's issues (hence the 'Research' part of the name).  But the new ex-co claims that they have started to delve into the pro-gay and pro-lesbian realm so far that they've neglected their original aim.

Now while I would have dismissed such fundamentalist rhetoric as pure hyperbole, unfortunately they have brought up concrete examples to support their case—so much so that it has made me pause and think. ( Read more... )


On a totally gender un-neutral note, it seems like this AWARE thing has now descended into the catfight of the year, with both sides rallying and exhorting women to sign up and attend the May 2 EOGM as though they were forming some sort of Amazon army.  Some of the fundie rhetoric really sound like a cry for jihaad (and in some way they think it really is).  Now the new ex-co claims that they have been receiving death threats, the secretariat staff (who are presumably loyal to the old guard) have been "hostile" and "unco-operative", and the new ex-co has responded by firing the secretariat and changing the locks of the AWARE centre.  Somehow I wonder, if this had been an organisation of men instead, whether it would have resulted in such a bitchfest....

---

Addendum [25 Apr 09 4:21 p.m.]
I read the rebuttal by the AWARE old guard and I am relieved (especially by the last part) that the accusations by the new ex-co are unfounded.

I am especially heartened by Dana Lam's statement: "We women have been saying that decisions—public, personal, family—cannot be made by only men; that they have to be made jointly with men.  If we walk the talk, then we have to give men the right to vote." [emphasis mine]  This really shows how enlightened they have become, where they believe that men have a say and that their opinions count, rather than the new ex-co's chest-thumping, bra-burning idea of 'gender equality'.  AWARE is, after all, about wanting to improve women's conditions and consequently their family's conditions, not about making sure women and men achieve "full gender equality".  That'll only happen when women and men share the same IPPT standards, the same toilets; and oh, women are allowed to walk on the beach topless.  Yeah. :P

§ Technorati tags: news bites; social commentary

After using AVG, I realise that Norton is really a piece of shit.  I don't believe that Norton has the audacity to ask you to pay for even virus definition updates when AVG is doing it for free.  Ridding the world of computer viruses should be seen as a public service, dammit!

---

I have been following the AWARE leadership saga ever since it erupted and I must say that I'm quite sceptical over where all this is going.  Firstly, any power grab (let's not mince words, this co-ordinated effort is exactly what it is, so Josie, stop trying to bullshit us that you and your team "only just got to know each other") by a bunch of newbies who'd only just joined in the past 3 months is already cause to raise eyebrows.  Then, the new team initially declines to disclose their plans for the future (so they swept to power without a platform?  How believable is that??)

More importantly, I raised more eyebrows at the credentials of the new president: vice-president of credit cards at DBS, a.k.a. the person who was in charge when that whole ruckus over supporting FOTF, that anti-gay hippie-christian group, appeared to backtrack after a public outcry, and then insidiously reaffirmed their support.  More interestingly, she is married to a certain Dr Alan Chin, who, together with 2 others on her new ex-co, has written letters against repealing s377A.  It doesn't take an Einstein to see the connection.

Interesting also is the fact that she apparently wanted to become AWARE president so much that she apparently disregarded her employer's opposition to her taking up the position.  Now should we even need to wonder why she was so adamant about being president?  Do you really think it was because she "felt that [she] had to pick up the baton, to run and to continue to lead this organisation that had been mired in controversies in the last one, two weeks" [notice the words "continue to lead"?  Continue from where if she really wasn't leading anything previously?]—when in the first place they were the ones who contributed to the controversy by being in a rush to replace sub-committee heads and disregarding input and advice from older AWARE members?

And then what do you end up with?  A mentoring scheme to groom younger women for leadership positions called... 'Wind Beneath My Wings'.  The only thing I think of when I hear that is an overplayed 80s Bette Midler song; that, or Bernoulli's Theorem.

It is also telling that within a day of Josie Lau becoming president, Braema Mathi was dismissed as chairperson of the CEDAW sub-committee via a curt e-mail, when Braema had headed it for 5 years, had special training by the International Women's Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific, and had previously presented AWARE's CEDAW report at the UN.  In fact, the current report was in progress when she was booted out.


And I know I'm running out of eyebrows to raise here, but I couldn't help it when I read the new team's statement that "the goal remains to bring about full equality of the sexes and to end all forms of discrimination against women".  Now correct me if I'm wrong but while AWARE's goal has always been to advocate ending all forms of discrimination against women, I don't think they ever used that term "full equality of the sexes" and now I really wonder what exactly do they mean by that.  Before this I had already been sceptical about how AWARE chooses to selectively make noise at matters where women are disadvantaged and keep conspicuously silent at issues of gender imbalance where women are not.  For example, is AWARE going to now advocate the establishment of National Service for women?  Are they going to press to amend the Women's Charter to take into consideration men who have less financial standing than their wives?  Are they going to do anything about domestic spousal violence against men?  Are they going to amend the Penal Code that states that men's modesty cannot be outraged, or that any slur on a man's moral reputation can also be considered defamatory?

Well for all you know, one of their ideas of "full equality" is to extend s377A to female-female 'gross indecency' as well!

I think the old guard was a bit more realistic and pragmatic when it came to the role and purpose of the organisation.  As Constance Singam stated, AWARE used to be about "the fundamental rights and responsibilities of women as women.  These include being treated as informed individuals capable of choice, being deserving of opportunities equal to those of men in education, marriage and employment; and being able to control their own bodies, particularly with regard to sexual and reproductive health".  You don't see any mention about equality of the sexes (let alone full equality) and at least those values were more focused in the areas they wanted to make headway in—areas that matter, not some frivolous chest-thumping, bra-burning cry for equality fluff, without knowing exactly what they wanted to make equal.


But anyway, well what do I know?  I'm just a man after all, and according to some quarters, "the men just don't get it".  Now you don't see AWARE saying anything about that ad, do you?  So much for "full equality".

^* Kudos to msbrightside's friend Derek for coming up with that brilliant counter-acronym.  Well it sure beats AWARE [All Women Are Really Evil]!

§ Technorati tags: observations; social commentary

Can someone please explain to me... what is it about this inane habit of jumping in photographs?

Recently a few of us were taking photos at a place where we'll only go once and never come back, and somewhere the suggestion came up: instead of taking the usual stand-in-front of the sign photographs, let's do something funny... like jump in the photo.

I was like... WTH??  When I look at the photo in the future to remember the time I spent here, I would like to look dignified and have a photo I would be proud to show my friends, parents, etc., not looking absolutely daft, having lost my marbles.  Not to mention too that the people who sponsored our attire would certainly not like to see us make fools of ourselves whilst clad in that attire.  Naturally I declined to take up this absurd idea.

I didn't think much of it until I was looking at some friends' photos in Facebook, and then I spotted from more than a few people more photos of people jumping.  And then still more.  And more.  In fact, they actually uploaded multiple photos of themselves and their entourage in mid-air, arms out and legs up, in various stages of the same pose a monkey makes when it swings on a vine smack into a tree.  Needless to say, I certainly do not understand why on earth anyone would want to portray such a ridiculous image of themselves to the world.  There are many other ways to liven up a photo and make it appear more humorous and spontaneous—expressions, for one.  I am a big fan of natural expressions and I don't really like photography that's too posed.  I like capturing in a photograph expressions (or exaggerated expressions) that one would normally use in real life; we don't go around jumping like monkeys in real life.

Am I really getting old or is it just another excuse to act retarded in photographs, just like the infamous and equally pandemic act-cute V-sign people apparently can't help doing involuntarily with their fingers?

§ Technorati tags: social commentary

I was surfing through Facebook recently when I was suddenly struck by how many people there are stating their political views as 'apathetic'.



In FB, under your profile, stating your political views is merely an option and not mandatory—you can actually leave it blank and many do.  So to actually declare to all and sundry that your political views are 'apathetic', I figured that you must be pretty proud of the fact that you are don't give a damn about politics.  If that is the case, there are certainly a lot of young people in this country who are actually proud of their apathy.

It's such a coincidence too that this post was just posted on sg_ljers.  Young people who don't know and don't care.

I think it's pretty sad that there are actually people who are proud of the fact that they don't give a damn about how this country is run, or how the world is run, where their interest in politics extends only to whether or not there will be a first black US President.  Stuff like this and this, aren't you at least interested to know?  Of course politics isn't the most important thing in the world, nor should we be necessarily spending the bulk of our time getting involved in politics or knowing everything there is about it, but since it is something which affects and whose effects permeate through all of society, I thought it is really quite basic to at least care about how things are and where our lives are headed.  And even if you really can't be bothered about it, do you have to be proud of the fact that you can't be bothered about it?

§ Technorati tags: observations; social commentary

Taking photographs of yourself in the mirror and posting them on your blog for the world to see is called narcissism, not 'doing The Karen Cheng'.

But then, as my friend said, it really is rather sad to have your name become the personification of narcissism.

But then again, it really is the epitome of narcissism to rename narcissism after yourself.

§ Technorati tags: social commentary

I read something in the news recently which troubled me greatly.

( Woman fined for letting dog under her care bite girl, three )

The crux of the report was that this woman brought her friend's dog out to Sentosa for a walk and neglected to leash it nor muzzle it.  As a result, the dog bit a three-year-old girl.

What I found most disturbing about the report are the final three paragraphs.  The dog was examined and found to be free of infectious diseases, so it was obviously healthy and not diseased.  However, it was found that the dog's temperament was not suitable for it to be adopted by another owner and so the state killed off the dog in November.

I really do not understand this.  In the first place, why does the dog have to be adopted by another owner if it was not the owner's fault that the dog was let out unleashed and unmuzzled?  What if the actual owner was a responsible, caring owner who just made the one mistake of asking a clueless friend to take care of her dog?  Unless, of course, the dog's temperament was not suitable to be owned by its present owner as well (which is not what the report is suggesting).

But even so, in this case, is there really a need to kill the dog?  Animals are living things, not toys or objects which you throw or destroy at a whim.  Although I am not a vegetarian, I don't support the needless killing of animals, i.e. I accept slaughtering animals for meat, but I do not condone killing an animal solely for the sake of killing it; in this case, I find the killing of the dog absolutely needless.  In the first place, how do you determine within the span of a month or so that a dog's temperament is suitable or not to be owned?  Do you communicate with the dog?  Do you conduct psychiatric tests?  Basically, how do you know for sure?  And we are not talking about releasing it to its natural environment or not, or consigning it to an animal sanctuary or not, we are talking about whether the dog lives or dies.

Yet this is not an isolated case.  So many times we have read in the news about people being caught attempting to smuggle in animals.  And the news report usually includes the terse line that the animals were "destroyed" by the AVA.  These animals are not pirated watches or VCDs that you 'destroy', they are alive and you kill them—simply because somebody brought them in illegally.  We don't hang illegal immigrants do we?  Yes, you scrap cars which are mechanically unreliable but it's an entirely different matter to kill an animal which is perfectly healthy, simply for doing what it does naturally.  If a parent does not restrain his child and the child runs around at the MRT station, pushes someone else down the escalator which results in multiple fractures, do you assess whether the child's temperament is suitable to be disciplined and if not, put the child down?  You don't.  So why do you do it with another similarly living, breathing being?

I cannot imagine how painful it must be for an owner to be told that the state has ordered that your pet, your lifelong companion, be killed for a reason you don't understand; it must certainly be akin to what the families of death row convicts feel.

It is very ironic that a society which claims to be for the prevention of cruelty to animals can condone this act of ultimate cruelty to a perfectly healthy animal.  Punish the person who made the mistake, don't punish the animal for only doing what it naturally does.  One of the most memorable quotes I have goes:

The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. I hold that, the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by men from the cruelty of man.

– Mahatma Gandhi –
If this holds true, then Singapore is indeed sorely lacking in greatness and moral progress.

[X-posted to sg_ljers]

§ Technorati tags: news bites; pensive; quotes; social commentary

It is no secret that I think Mr Wang is a very smart man.  I am very impressed with the way he analyses things, to the point where I would feel much more confident about the Government if he were in the Government (but somehow I doubt Mr Wang would want to, heh).  However, I do hope that the people in the Government at least pay attention to and reflect on what he says, because sometimes people need intelligent minds like Mr Wang to knock some sense into them.

Today I read in Mr Wang's blog about this news article regarding a man in a coma who was dying in hospital.  His cousin approached the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (which also issues NRICs and therefore has everybody's most updated address) to locate his mother from whom he was estranged.

And the ICA refused to help, citing some regulation about it being an offence for any public officer to disclose to anyone information from its records.  The hospital offered to furnish proof that the man was in a critical condition so that the ICA could try and contact his mother but they flatly refused.  Fortunately, the cousin managed to track down the mother in the end through other means and she got to see her son one last time before he died.  This story has a happy ending, but for the ICA, the entire article just screamed 'all-time EPIC FAIL'.

Personally, I found it extremely shocking that even in a matter of life-and-death, the ICA could just sit pretty and do nothing—nothing even remotely constructive.  Mr Wang criticised (rightly) the ICA for this inflexibility, saying that there are only 2 reasons why the ICA didn't try to at least contact the mother on the cousin's behalf: that they were either just too stupid to realise that contacting her on the cousin's behalf instead of disclosing her address would not breach her privacy, or that they just couldn't be bothered.  From my experience of how the civil service works, I totally wouldn't put these 2 reasons past them, but I could very well offer a third reason: that they wanted to help, but they were afraid that by contacting the mother directly, they might get in trouble, 'so better not'.

During my stint in the civil service I have encountered quite a number of these cases, where people could've helped and would like to have helped, but didn't know if it was allowed 'so better not'.  Fortunately, my staff and I were like-minded in tossing all these conventions to the wind and going out of our way, beyond our job scope to help people.  I remembered how my staff once draughted this letter for a pilot trainee certifying he was undergoing training, so as to hold his place in the university—even though it wasn't within her job scope.  She got the Mindef Star Service Award for that (amongst other things, mostly also done outside of her job scope).  I think any other section head or branch head would've vetoed her doing that because they wouldn't know if they might get in trouble for anyhow certifying stuff, 'so better not'.

We need more people like this in the civil service—people who remember that as civil servants, their job is first and foremost service to the people, in any way they can.  Granted, some of the people are just arses when demanding that they be served, but the civil service should not be afraid to step up and serve when a genuine case presents itself.  And a paradigm shift of this kind can only be achieved if the direction comes from on top.

So that's why I sincerely hope that Dr Teo Ho Pin and the beleaguered MHA can be humble enough to sit up and take notice of what Mr Wang said, because it really makes a lot of sense.

§ Technorati tags: news bites; social commentary

The recent ruckus over the Boon Lay Garden Primary School canteen has highlighted once again the importance of ensuring that this whole attempt at multiculturalism and multi-racialism is done with the correct perspective in mind.

This may not be a politically correct thing to say, but like it or not, different races or religions will always be different.  A lot of people refuse to believe this and stubbornly cling on to the belief that it is possible to foster a society where everybody embraces everybody else's way of life, to form some garish pot-pourri of lifestyles.

That is not to say that it is not possible to live harmoniously with people who don't look like you, practise the same customs, or believe in the same god—in fact it is very possible.  The essential ingredient is a common understanding from both sides.  This understanding isn't the kind of understanding where 'you don't mess with me, I don't mess with you', but a concerted effort in finding out the truth behind what the other person thinks, feels, or believes—and at the same time, the truth about what your community thinks, feels or believes.

Indeed, the 'you don't mess with me, I don't mess with you' attitude isn't a common understanding at all.  It's tolerance, and in the past a lot of people did not appreciate the short-sighted nature of mere tolerance, which is very likely to seethe until the point where you reach flashpoint, where a straw would break the camel's back.  Well, fortunately nowadays a lot of people have progressed to the level where they realise the inherent folly of merely tolerating their different neighbours and have championed the cause of creating a paradigm shift to the midpoint between tolerance and intolerance: the aforementioned common understanding.

But is it really the midpoint?  After all, understanding is very different from tolerance.  In fact, it is on a totally different different plane of existence, and this is where a lot of people fail to make the distinction.  You can't combat tolerance by forcing people out of their comfort zones to mix with people who are different from themselves, making them share the same customs and have communal services or communal rituals.  Yes, that will stop mere tolerance of others because each community is no longer insulated from the others, but that is not fostering understanding.  That is assimilation, and what a lot of people don't realise is that doing that isn't the midpoint between tolerance and intolerance, but in fact, assimilation is the opposite of tolerance itself.  Assimilation IS intolerance.

And the BLGPS principal did exactly that.  By attempting "to provide a common eating space for all [the] children, whatever their race" by making the whole canteen halal, what he did was not to foster understanding but to enforce assimilation: assimilation into the halal eating requirements of Muslims.  This takes a more vigilante tone especially when you remember that the principal actually instructed security guards to search for non-halal food, placing a pork floss bun in the same category as cigarettes, alcohol, pornography and other contraband items.

That is not understanding, that is intolerance.  It is not getting Chinese students to understand that Muslims can only eat halal food—it is intolerance of Chinese students eating non-halal food.  The crux of providing a common space is not to force everyone to eat the same food because Chinese students would not understand that Muslims can only eat halal food or why they have to.  Indeed, I think it would do more for inter-racial understanding if a Chinese kid was to offer a pork floss bun or a piece of bak kwa to a Muslim kid only to have the Muslim kid tell his friend that he can't eat it.  A string of questions would naturally ensue, and together with the corresponding answers, would enable the former to understand or at least appreciate that Muslims have specific eating requirements.

I support very strongly the MOE's decision that common school canteens must provide a mix of both halal and non-halal food.  Recognising the necessity of specific dietary requirements for Muslims and their rights to have halal food should not come at the expense of the rights of non-Muslims to choose non-halal food.  It is important for there to be a ruling that every public food court or hawker centre or canteen must have at least a certain number of stalls selling halal food, but it is equally important that there is also a mandated number of stalls selling non-halal food.  To put it in a very un-PC way, if it is not a requirement for non-Muslims to consume halal food, then they should not be forced to do so, especially in a situation where they have no other choice, such as in a school canteen.

This incident also shows the danger of creeping fundamentalism in a secular society.  There is nothing preventing people in positions of authority allowing their own (fallible) interpretations (or misinterpretations, actually) to lead them to make decisions which affect everyone detrimentally.  Like in this case, the principal's fanatical misinterpretation of the halal label led him to believe that once halal certification was granted, it was his responsibility to enforce that no non-halal food was allowed in the canteen when the requirement was only related to the food stalls.  In recent times, we have consistently seen examples of unthinking fanatics attempt to impose their own idea of an utopian society on the rest of the population who do not subscribe to their beliefs, like the infamous dogs-in-cabs and dogs-in-McDonald's women.  Most often the agency under fire would err on the side of caution, giving in to their demands for the sake of political correctness, and yet something else would be forcibly assimilated for the sake of not being branded as intolerant (which, as stated, it ironically still is).

It is impossible to ensure that such idiots always check with the people who know before shooting their mouth off, but I feel that once somebody has shot his or her mouth off with something misinterpreted, the religious authority should do more to publicly correct (and even chastise) the individual.

Understanding and choice for both parties, not tolerance nor assimilation.

§ Technorati tags: religion; social commentary

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/317293/1/.html

James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, rejected blame, saying: "Every country has a negotiating position, not just the US."

"We will lead, the US will lead, and we will continue to lead, but leadership also requires others to fall in line and follow."

Talk about contradicting yourself from one sentence to the next.

In the first place, America today is a mess.  Just last week, there were 3 shootings in the US: one in Nebraska, one in Colorado, one in Las Vegas.

I don't know what it is with Americans, but when they decide to snuff out their own existence, they just can't go somewhere can kill themselves quietly like normal suicidal people.  When they decide to do it, they must do it in a blaze of glory: by shooting other people indiscriminately before shooting themselves with the last bullet.  Columbine was like that, Virginia Tech was like that.  So many tragedies and yet they never learn.

For all their hoopla on their War on Terror, they don't seem to realise that this is terrorism: when you are afraid to go to the mall or to school, or to the train station not because you're afraid that al-Qaeda is going to blow you sky-high, but because you don't know when some psycho kid whom the system decided not to care about, got fired from his part-time job, got rejected by the school babe, and who just suddenly snapped, has decided to take out dad's perfectly legal shotgun and start shooting everyone he can before doing the same to himself.

Before they run after terrorists in other countries, why don't they just clean up their own backyard?  But on the contrary, you actually see them defending ordinary citizens' right to own, carry, and discharge firearms!  Any idiot can see that banning guns is the most effective long-term solution to the gun problem.  I don't see similar shootings in Canada, in the UK, in Spain, in China, in Singapore, in Japan.  It's simple mathematics: take away one of the factors of the equation and it's just not possible; if daddy wasn't allowed to buy and keep a shotgun, what would psycho teen have to shoot people with?  Probably a catapult.  But the Americans can't see that far ahead and all they can trumpet is their Second Amendment.

This is a country which deems as "entertainment" watching large beefy men exact as much pain on each other as possible—even though they know it's all fake.  I think I could write a whole essay just on that alone.  The last instance which comes close was probably the Roman Empire's gladiators, and even then, that was real not staged.

Is this really the kind of country the rest of the world should be falling in line to follow?

---

§ Quod vide:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7104800.stm
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/315775/1/.html

§ Technorati tags: news bites; social commentary